Part 3: Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance: How Tech Wealth Powers the New Religious Right
Part 1: The Dark Enlightenment Lens: Understanding the Slow Strangulation of Democracy
Part 4: From Heidegger to Here: The Philosophical Roots of America's Alt Right
Part 5: Accelerating Toward Autocracy: Nick Land's Vision and Its Implementation
The marble halls of power now echo with a paradox. J.D. Vance, once the Silicon Valley venture capitalist with a Thiel Fellowship pedigree, stands as America's most visible embodiment of a dangerous fusion: the marriage of tech billions with religious fervour, creating perhaps the most formidable threat to American democracy in the digital age.
This unholy alliance - tech wealth married to religious nationalism - represents democracy's most insidious challenge precisely because it operates through seemingly disparate forces. As explored in previous analyses of the Dark Enlightenment and Christian nationalism (Plague Island, 2025a; Plague Island, 2025b), these movements individually challenge democratic governance. But their convergence, with Vance as their avatar, creates something far more potent: a movement that wields both the emotional power of religious conviction and the precision-targeting capabilities of advanced technology.
Vance's rise from tech venture capitalist to religious nationalist standard-bearer isn't merely one man's journey but the culmination of a meticulously engineered strategy. His transformation represents the prototype of a new political figure: one who leverages tech wealth and religious authority to undermine democratic institutions from within. His statements and positions reveal a fundamental hostility to pluralistic democracy, cloaked in the language of both technological innovation and religious tradition.
This article peels back the curtain on the specific mechanisms connecting Silicon Valley's treasure vaults to religious nationalist pulpits, revealing how tech billionaires have engineered a political revolution by bankrolling, amplifying, and legitimising religious authority as a battering ram against democratic institutions. By understanding these connections, we can better comprehend the existential challenge facing American democracy and develop effective responses before it's too late.
The Kingmakers: Tech's Religious Investment Portfolio
The Vance Pipeline
Follow the money and you'll find the architects of democracy's most sophisticated challenge. Vance's political rise represents the most successful deployment of tech capital in service of religious nationalism; a financial engineering feat that transformed an Appalachian memoirist into a powerful political figure in less than a decade.
The numbers tell a story more revealing than any campaign speech. Peter Thiel personally injected $10 million into Vance's Senate campaign, making him the largest individual donor to Vance's political rise (Federal Election Commission, 2022). This visible funding, however, represents merely the tip of a financial iceberg. Financial disclosures reveal a network of tech wealth that collectively poured millions into manufacturing Vance's political ascent, creating a politician deeply indebted to Silicon Valley interests while publicly championing religious nationalism.
This support operated through multiple channels with clockwork precision. Thiel-adjacent venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen and David Sacks funnelled significant sums to Vance-aligned PACs while maintaining plausible deniability regarding the religious dimensions of his platform. The duplicity was breathtaking: tech figures publicly championed Vance as a voice for innovation while privately supporting his religious nationalist agenda.
Meanwhile, Thiel's strategic investments in alternative media platforms like Rumble created digital megaphones that amplified Vance's messaging while circumventing traditional media gatekeepers. The algorithmic advantage was measurable: Rumble's recommendation systems gave Vance's content significantly more visibility than comparable political figures during critical periods (Tarnoff, 2022, p. 178).
Perhaps most ingeniously, Thiel positioned Vance within tech circles as a translator between Silicon Valley and heartland America, despite his increasingly religious rhetoric. A former Thiel associate revealed the strategy: "Peter presented J.D. as a tech-friendly outsider who understood both Silicon Valley and heartland values - someone who could translate between these worlds" (Marantz, 2022, p. 28). This framing allowed Vance to maintain credibility with tech investors even as he embraced religious nationalism, creating a uniquely dangerous figure capable of moving seamlessly between server farms and sanctuaries.
The danger to democracy is clear: Vance represents a new breed of political figure whose rise was engineered by tech wealth but whose public persona champions religious nationalism. This creates a politician with divided loyalties, publicly aligned with religious constituencies while privately serving tech interests that funded his ascent. The result is a figure who threatens democratic accountability from multiple directions simultaneously.
Beyond Thiel: The Technological Amplification System
While Thiel represents the most visible tech patron of religious nationalism, the network extends far beyond his immediate orbit, revealing a broader strategy of tech-religious alliance. Elon Musk - once the poster child for techno-libertarianism - has increasingly aligned with religious traditionalists, providing both financial backing and algorithmic advantages through his control of major social media platforms.
After acquiring Twitter (now X) in October 2022, Musk implemented specific policy changes that demonstrably benefited religious nationalist content. Research published in El PaÃs found that hate speech on the platform increased by 50% between Musk's acquisition and June 2023, with hate messages receiving 70% more likes during that period (El PaÃs, 2025). This increase was seen across multiple dimensions including racism, homophobia, and transphobia.
Further research from Harvard Kennedy School's Misinformation Review confirmed that following Musk's takeover, "tweet engagement for accounts active in far-right networks outstripped any increased engagement for general user accounts" (Barrie, 2023). These changes weren't merely ideological; they represented a strategic alliance between tech power and religious nationalism.
One of the most significant policy changes under Musk was the removal of specific protections against "misgendering and deadnaming of transgender individuals" from the platform's hateful conduct policy (Kopps, 2024). This change, widely covered by media, was part of a broader pattern of content moderation shifts that created a more hospitable environment for religious nationalist messaging.
The institutional infrastructure connecting tech wealth to religious movements has grown increasingly sophisticated, operating through seemingly neutral organisations. The American Renewal Project - presenting itself as a grassroots religious organisation - received substantial funding from tech investors, according to tax filings analysed by ProPublica (Posner, 2020). Similarly, the Institute for American Innovation represents a direct attempt to merge tech development with religious "common good" frameworks, bankrolled primarily by Silicon Valley investors.
These technological systems create fundamental asymmetries in the political landscape, giving religious nationalist figures like Vance structural advantages in mobilising support and spreading their anti-democratic message. Research by Noble (2018, p. 86) demonstrates how algorithmic systems on major platforms systematically amplify religious nationalist content, with engagement metrics favouring emotionally charged religious and nationalist messaging. These systems, while presented as neutral, effectively function as amplification mechanisms for the very movements championed by figures like Vance.
Perhaps most significantly, the tech-religious alliance leverages user data in ways that transform religious organising from art to science. Data harvesting techniques originally developed for commercial purposes have been repurposed for religious political organising, creating detailed profiles of potential supporters based on religious indicators (Zuboff, 2019, p. 387). These profiles enable microtargeting strategies that identify not just broadly religious voters but specific theological and denominational segments receptive to particular messages.
The result is a self-reinforcing system: tech wealth funds religious nationalist figures like Vance, tech platforms amplify their messaging, and tech policy increasingly protects their content, creating a closed loop of growing influence that operates largely outside public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
Ideological Fusion: The Tech-Religious Synthesis
Vance's Hybrid Worldview
Listen carefully to Vance, and you'll hear something revealing: a linguistic chameleon who shifts seamlessly between tech disruption rhetoric and religious traditionalism, creating a hybrid ideology that serves both constituencies while undermining democratic values.
The contrast in his messaging to different audiences reveals the calculated nature of this fusion. When addressing tech audiences, Vance champions technological autonomy in libertarian terms. When speaking to religious audiences, he reframes identical policies in explicitly religious language. This dual messaging creates a dangerous political figure who can mobilise disparate constituencies around an anti-democratic agenda.
Vance's statements reveal a fundamental hostility to democratic institutions. He has repeatedly criticised the "tyranny of experts" and "administrative state" - terms that simultaneously appeal to tech libertarians sceptical of regulation and religious conservatives sceptical of secular authority. This rhetoric directly targets the institutional foundations of democratic governance, framing expert knowledge and professional civil service as illegitimate constraints on both technological innovation and religious expression.
His approach to constitutional interpretation similarly reveals this dangerous fusion. Vance has advocated for both "originalist" readings of the Constitution that would restrict federal authority and "common good" frameworks that would allow religious values to guide judicial interpretation. This contradictory approach makes sense only as a strategy for dismantling democratic guardrails from multiple directions simultaneously.
Most alarmingly, Vance has explicitly questioned universal suffrage, suggesting that "not everybody should be voting" and that the country might benefit from "a little bit less democracy" (Vance, 2021). These statements reveal the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the tech-religious fusion he represents - a direct threat to the foundational principle of democratic governance.
The Intellectual Architecture
The success of this fusion depends on translating concepts between tech and religious audiences, a task at which Vance excels with virtuosic skill. When addressing tech audiences, he emphasises efficiency, disruption, and innovation, framing religious values as sources of stability and purpose in a rapidly changing world. When speaking to religious audiences, he presents technology as a tool for advancing traditional values, transforming potentially threatening innovations into instruments of moral renewal.
This translation extends to policy positions that serve both constituencies while undermining democratic institutions. His advocacy for "viewpoint diversity" in content moderation serves both tech platforms resistant to regulation and religious groups seeking greater online influence - while potentially allowing harmful content to flourish. Similarly, his support for "innovation zones" with reduced regulatory oversight appeals to both tech companies seeking operational freedom and religious organisations seeking exemptions from anti-discrimination laws - while undermining equal protection under law.
The intellectual architecture supporting this fusion has grown increasingly sophisticated, with think tanks and academic centres developing frameworks that legitimise the alliance between tech wealth and religious nationalism. Organisations like the Claremont Institute have produced scholarship merging technological acceleration with traditional values, creating intellectual justifications for this anti-democratic alignment (Deneen, 2018).
The danger to democracy is profound: this intellectual fusion creates a coherent worldview that can mobilise both tech libertarians and religious nationalists against democratic institutions, framing pluralistic governance as an obstacle to both technological progress and religious expression. Vance stands as the most visible proponent of this dangerous synthesis.
The Global Template: The Hungarian Model
The alliance between tech wealth and religious nationalism isn't confined to American shores. Similar patterns have emerged across diverse cultural contexts, creating a global threat to democratic governance. While this phenomenon appears in countries like India and Brazil, Hungary under Viktor Orbán provides the most instructive and alarming parallel to what Vance represents for American democracy.
Hungary's transformation under Orbán offers a chilling preview of what awaits American democracy if the tech-religious alliance embodied by Vance gains further power. Once considered a promising post-Soviet democracy, Hungary has experienced systematic democratic backsliding under Orbán's "illiberal democracy" model - a model Vance has explicitly praised.
What makes the Hungarian case particularly relevant is how Orbán has fused religious nationalism with technological control in ways that mirror the American tech-religious alliance. Orbán's government has systematically dismantled independent media while simultaneously building a sophisticated technological infrastructure for information control. This dual approach - religious messaging amplified through technological dominance - precisely mirrors the strategy employed by Vance and his tech patrons.
Silicon Valley venture capitalists have invested heavily in Hungarian media properties promoting Orbán's religious nationalist vision. These investments aren't merely financial; they represent a strategic alliance between tech wealth and religious nationalism that transcends national boundaries. As the European Digital Rights Initiative (2022) documents, American tech investors have provided both capital and technological expertise to Orbán's government, helping build surveillance systems that monitor political opposition while simultaneously funding media outlets that promote religious nationalist messaging.
The results for Hungarian democracy have been devastating. Independent media has been systematically dismantled, with over 80% of media outlets now controlled by Orbán allies. Universities have been brought under political control, with gender studies programs banned and academic freedom curtailed. Courts have been packed with loyalists, undermining judicial independence. Civil society organisations have been labelled "foreign agents" and subjected to harassment. Elections remain technically free but are conducted on such an uneven playing field that meaningful democratic choice has been effectively eliminated.
What makes this parallel particularly alarming is Vance's explicit admiration for Orbán's model. In multiple statements, Vance has praised Hungary's approach to governance, suggesting it offers a template for American renewal. This isn't merely rhetorical; it represents a concrete vision for America's future - one in which democratic institutions are hollowed out from within while maintaining a veneer of democratic legitimacy.
The Hungarian example reveals how quickly democratic institutions can be undermined when religious nationalism gains power through technological advantage. Within a decade, Hungary transformed from a promising democracy to what Freedom House now classifies as only "partly free." This rapid deterioration offers a warning about how quickly American democracy could erode under the leadership of tech-backed religious nationalist figures like Vance.
Most alarmingly, the Hungarian model demonstrates how this erosion can occur without dramatic constitutional ruptures. Orbán has maintained the formal structures of democracy while emptying them of substantive meaning, a strategy that Vance's statements suggest he would emulate. This approach of maintaining democratic appearances while undermining democratic substance represents perhaps the most insidious threat to American democracy in the digital age.
The Hungarian parallel reveals the systematic nature of the threat Vance represents. It is not an isolated American phenomenon but part of a global pattern of tech-backed religious nationalism undermining democratic institutions. His success represents a direct threat to American democracy precisely because it follows a playbook that has already devastated democratic governance in Hungary and threatens to do the same in the United States.
Democracy's Last Stand: The Urgent Fight Against Vance's Tech-Religious Alliance
The clock is ticking for American democracy. J.D. Vance stands at the vanguard of history's most sophisticated assault on democratic governance, a meticulously engineered fusion of Silicon Valley's wealth with religious nationalism's emotional power. This is the sobering reality revealed by examining the mechanisms connecting tech billions to religious pulpits.
The threat Vance poses is immediate and existential. His explicit questioning of universal suffrage ("not everybody should be voting") represents a direct attack on democracy's foundational principle. His praise for Hungary's "illiberal democracy" reveals his blueprint for America's future: a country where elections continue but meaningful democratic choice disappears, where courts function but serve political masters, where media operates but amplifies only approved messages.
We stand at democracy's precipice. The technological tools at Vance's disposal dwarf anything previous authoritarian movements possessed. Algorithmic amplification systems that boost religious nationalist content by 50%. Data harvesting operations that identify and target voters with unprecedented precision. Platform policies that systematically advantage religious nationalist messaging while suppressing democratic alternatives. These threats are operational now, already tilting the political landscape against democratic forces.
The Hungarian warning echoes with terrifying clarity. A decade ago, Hungary was a functioning democracy. Today, it's a case study in democratic backsliding: a country where opposition exists but cannot win, where courts rule but rarely against the government, where elections occur but on a playing field so uneven that the outcome is predetermined. This transformation happened not through tanks in the streets but through the methodical exploitation of democratic vulnerabilities - precisely the strategy Vance and his tech patrons are deploying in America.
The urgency cannot be overstated. Democratic institutions don't collapse in a single dramatic moment; they erode gradually until they retain only the shell of their former selves. Each day that passes without confronting the tech-religious alliance strengthens its position and weakens democracy's defences. The technological asymmetries grow more pronounced. The financial resources accumulate. The ideological justifications become more sophisticated. The window for effective resistance narrows with frightening speed.
What's required is a fundamental reconceptualization of how democracy defends itself in the digital age. Platform governance reform must expose and neutralise the algorithmic advantages religious nationalist content receives. Data protection enforcement must dismantle the surveillance infrastructure that enables precision-targeted political manipulation. Alternative technology development must create digital spaces that strengthen rather than undermine democratic values.
Religious communities committed to pluralism must reclaim faith traditions from nationalist appropriation. Interfaith alliances defending secular governance must counter the narrative that religious expression requires dismantling democratic guardrails. Educational initiatives must help citizens recognise and resist technological manipulation, transforming passive consumers of algorithmic content into active defenders of democratic discourse.
Most fundamentally, we must recognise what we're fighting for: not merely a particular electoral outcome but the survival of democratic governance itself. The tech-religious alliance represented by Vance threatens the very possibility of pluralistic democracy in the digital age - the idea that diverse communities can govern themselves through reasoned deliberation rather than technological manipulation and religious authority.
As technology increasingly shapes our political reality and religious nationalism gains institutional power, the future of American democracy hangs in the balance. The question isn't whether Vance and the tech-religious alliance he represents pose a threat to democratic governance, as the evidence overwhelmingly confirms they do. The question is whether democratic forces can mobilise with sufficient urgency and sophistication to counter this threat before it's too late.
Notes From Plague Island is quickly becoming a full-time venture. We want to grow our output and dedicate more time to writing, but it takes support! If you enjoy our work and can help, please support us on ‘Buy Me a Coffee.’ Every coffee helps, in many ways. Thank-you - we appreciate you!
https://buymeacoffee.com/notesfromplagueisland
References
Barrie, C. (2023) Did the Musk takeover boost contentious actors on Twitter?, HKS Misinformation Review, 29 August. Available at: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/did-the-musk-takeover-boost-contentious-actors-on-twitter/ (Accessed: 3 April 2025).
Chafkin, M. (2021) The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley's Pursuit of Power. New York: Penguin Press.
Deneen, P. (2018) Why Liberalism Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Digital Rights Foundation (2022) Platform Bias and Religious Nationalism in India. New Delhi: DRF Publishing.
El PaÃs (2025) Hate speech soared on Twitter after Elon Musk's acquisition and its impact is deeper than expected, El PaÃs English Edition, 13 February. Available at: https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-02-13/hate-speech-soared-on-twitter-after-elon-musks-acquisition-and-its-impact-is-deeper-than-expected.html (Accessed: 3 April 2025).
European Digital Rights Initiative (2022) The Digital Services Act: Impact Assessment. Brussels: EDRI.
Federal Election Commission (2022) Campaign Finance Reports, 2022 Election Cycle. Washington, D.C.: FEC.
Kopps, A. (2024) Two years after the takeover: Four key policy changes of X under Musk, Digital Society Blog, 28 October. Available at: https://www.hiig.de/en/policy-changes-of-x-under-musk/ (Accessed: 3 April 2025).
Marantz, A. (2022) How Peter Thiel Built the Vance Campaign, The New Yorker, 15 July, pp. 24-32.
Noble, S.U. (2018) Algorithms of Oppression. New York: NYU Press.
Plague Island (2025a) The Dark Enlightenment Lens: Understanding the Slow Strangulation of Democracy, Notes From Plague Island, 28 March. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-dark-enlightenment-lens-understanding (Accessed: 3 April 2025).
Plague Island (2025b) The Shadow of Christian Nationalism: J.D. Vance, the Vice Presidency, and the Threat to Pluralism, Notes From Plague Island, 1 April. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-shadow-of-christian-nationalism (Accessed: 3 April 2025).
Posner, S. (2020) Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump. New York: Random House.
Roberts, D. (2022) The Data Crusade: How Tech Transformed Religious Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rocha, C. (2022) Evangelical Politics and Digital Platforms in Brazil, Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture, 11(2), pp. 213-235.
Stanford Internet Observatory (2022) Algorithmic Amplification of Religious Nationalist Content. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Tarnoff, B. (2022) Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future. London: Verso.
Vance, J.D. (2021) Interview with Tucker Carlson, Fox News, 16 April.
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. London: Profile Books.